Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[lightgigantic]

Then what other slant is there for priests and pastors who beat and bash their church members in an exorcism?

a poor fund of knowledge ... much like any other incident of malpractice

What political slant is there for witch doctors to kidnap children in Uganda and kill them in sacrificial offerings to their Gods for their clients?

If they have clients other than their gods it should be obvious ....

Individuals will act according to their wishes and their own motivations and some of those individuals will find religious motivation to do something inherently bad, even though millions of others do not find the same motivation from that particular religion. The person committing the act of violence is still religiously motivated. Ergo, it is still religious motivation for that individual.

so what is it?
their own wishes or religious motivation?

And?

The motivation for those individuals is still religious, even if it is mixed with political overtones.

Actions which may be in part political, violence with political overtones, where the perpetrator finds reason for his/her actions in their religious beliefs and what they believe as the "absolute truth" in their religious beliefs which for them, motivated them to commit the act.. that is religious motivation, even if other factors were also motivators.. It does not make their religious motivation any less real.

I don't think its possible to adhere to provincial politics and the absolute truth

I'll give you an example:

To get things started it took only ordinary religious belief, nothing all that uncommon in America today. It took Jones, with his fundamentalist belief that the creator of the universe relayed Absolute Truth to ancient prophets who then memorialized that Absolute Truth in literal form in what we now call the Bible. Such beliefs alone, of course, usually don't result in direct acts of violence or even much controversy.

In his unique understanding of scripture, however, Jones interpreted biblical truth as justifying, if not requiring, him to lead his followers in the act of insulting Muslims by burning the Koran. As such, the chain of irrationality was underway.

To continue the chain, we must go to the other side of the world where once again we find common, ordinary religious beliefs, nothing that would usually be considered inherently dangerous. We find the Afghans, with their fundamentalist belief that the creator of the universe relayed Absolute Truth to another prophet, Muhammad, who then memorialized that Absolute Truth in literal form in what we now call the Koran. Although these religious beliefs alone would normally be considered benign, the actions of the mobs certainly were not. Having heard about the disrespectful burning by Jones of their holy book, some of the Afghans felt justified, if not obliged, in reacting with violence and slaughter.

A secularist might be tempted, in the face of these events, to make a broad indictment of all religion, but to be fair we must acknowledge that such a reaction would be overly simplistic. Events such as these, when analyzed thoroughly, can usually be understood as resulting from complex factors of sociology, psychology, culture, and even economics. Surely, to place all the blame on religion alone would be hasty.

Nevertheless, just as it would be wrong to simplistically attribute the violence entirely to religion, it would be similarly inappropriate to deny the obvious religious connection. Any objective assessment, not just of these events but of religion itself, must seriously ponder the chain of causation that so often leads from religion to irrational violence.​

Notice how the author of this article establishes a multiple array of causes and then concludes that religion often leads to irrational violence

Pay particular attention to that last paragraph. That is what you seem to be denying.

You mean the one that says there is sociology, psychology, culture, and even economics ... but when it becomes religious it suddenly becomes often and irrational?

Which does not mean that religious motivation was not also a factor in the conflict.

it means the religious motivation is a superficial dressing of more telling factors.

Just because there were other motivators does not mean that the religious compoment does not exist.

it means that without the more telling factors, the conflict cannot take place

Your stance would be akin to saying that the violence and hatred between Jews and Muslims in Israel has nothing to do with religion at all.

as opposed to what?
the occupation of land?

The religious motivation is still there.

for what?
violence or malpractice?


T

he point about religious motivation is that it is localised. It is individual.

In this case it is localized to individuals under the sway of a particular charismatic leader

You seem to be rejecting religion as a motivator for individuals because it is not on a large scale.

I am rejecting it because there are more accurate and telling motivational forces at work.

The scale is irrelevant LG.

the scale helps isolate the proper cause.
For instance if you have two communities of two different religious slants that have not engaged in violence for many hundreds for years and then suddenly it heats up, you can weigh in the scale to help establish what is really at play​

 

[Aqueous Id]

Of course there exists "religiously motivated violence" - if we operate with what is popularly known as a "pharisean" outlook on religion - namely, the subversion of religion by a hypocritically self-righteous person.
Such a pharisean outlook on religion is shared both by some people who are members of some religious organizations, as well as by those who are not.

Perhaps you should explain why religious people killing, kill because of their religion, or just kill for the same reason atheists kill.

Over a span of several centuries, hundreds of thousands of volunteers left their homes and families, throwing their women and children into severe poverty and distress, and marched across Europe in crusades they called "the Holy War" and "the Just War". They did so directly in response not only to the religious zeal associated with the struggle to liberate "the Holy Land" from the Seljuk Turks, who they branded as "devils" and "enemies of Our Lord", but with the blessings of bishops and priests, who offered countless Masses begging God to protect and preserve His "Holy Warriors", blessing their shields and swords with sacred ash of the censer and the holy sprinkling from the mitre, intoning sacred text and chant to the Lord beseeching His protection, anointing their foreheads with Holy Oil and invoking the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and the patronage of the Saints and warriors who preceded them, that they would reach down from heaven and guide these men to Jerusalem and give them strength to smite the enemy dead, in the most solemn and pious of knighting rituals that could possibly symbolize religious motivation. And when these men left their poor families to the care of the Church, relocating them to the abbeys and convents of their diocese, they did so with the full understanding and belief that their sins in this life were forgiven them, and their families, under the express command of the Apostle of the Lord in Rome, whose written instructions specifically included the reward of plenary indulgences.

It is hard to fathom any other example of religiously motivated violence that spanned so many countries for such a long time and which insinuated itself into the administrative and spiritual offices of its priestly class and under such devotedly loyal support of the sovereigns of the region who all embraced the Christian purpose and its Holy Wars.

The harsh reality of history continues to bruise the tender sensibility of modern religious idealism expressed by the above members. Nevertheless, we are left with tremendous stores of historical treasure in our museums and preserved sites to attest to the profound nature of this paradoxical mix of piety and violence.

The veneration of these sainted warriors by all of the faithful continued long after their exploits, including the construction of elaborate shrines and sanctuaries dedicated to their memory, where, for centuries, solemn prayers were offered to God to assure that these souls had claimed their rightful place at His right hand.

Below is the Vial of the Sacred Blood, delivered to Belgium from Jerusalem after the 12th century victory, around which was constructed the Basilica of the Holy Blood, one of the architectural legacies of this remarkably religiously violent era in western history:

 

[lightgigantic]

Here are just a few particular examples from a particular batch of people - serial killers.

David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), murdered more than 10 women: "I was searching the bible and soul searching and I decided God wanted me to do that."

The Yorkshire Ripper murdered 11 girls. He "was on a divine mission and felt he had been chosen to hear the word of GOD" (Flint Journal).

Sampson Kanderayi, a mass murderer called The Ax Killer, killed more than 30 people. The newspaper reported "he did it to appease evil spirits." He was a Christian.

We used to have a resident vagrant in the locality. He used to talk of issues relating to the molecules and atoms that were splitting right before his eyes. While he didn't murder anyone, this "scientific" vision of his did lead to him doing a few zany things (like attempting to synthesize amphetamines from toothpaste and a cigarette lighter for example).

Do you think that his actions were motivated by science?
or do you think its a bit of a misdemeanour to categorize it like that since there are far more pressing motivational aspects to his actions?

---

Has anybody mentioned Exodus 22:18 yet, and what it inspired and continues to inspire in some places? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

A lot of this has already been touched on, but in brief ...
exodus is a cutting edge civil program ... circa 1400 BC (not like you see people busy running around trying to acquire slaves just so they can apply the other injunctions of exodus)

Perhaps lightgigantic ought to learn something about the persecution of witches and the Inquisition.

These things have already been touched on but in brief ... witches, apart from appearing 1000 years after exodus, were granted a sort of terrorist like class (with ideas of them plotting to over throw the state) and the spanish inquisition were more of a national body to further Spanish interests (read the wiki page about them for info about how they were popularly misrepresented by classical writers of the 19th/20th century

 

[lightgigantic]

i suppose
were any incidents of satanism offered up as proof of "religiously" motivated violence in this thread?

/curious

already tried earlier I am afraid ...

 

[GeoffP]

All Your Base Are Belong To Us


LG, I just want to say that I understand why
you and Wynn are doing this:
you don't like to think that violence might be inspired by religion,
because it's not the way you see your own religion.

The problem, of course, is that others
are not so kindly or even-handed.​

Beautiful words: for once gustav was making sense.

I wept openly and unashamedly.

 

[GeoffP]

Jan Ardena,



You seem to be suggesting that whenever we find somebody who says they are motivated by religion to do evil acts, we should ignore that and look for some other motivation instead.

What is not good enough about taking suicide bombers etc. at their word? They say God wants them to do it to be matyrs etc. They believe they are religiously motivated.

Who are you to tell them that what they believe is wrong? "Oh, you're not really religiously motivated at all. It must be politics, or something psychological. It can't be religion really. We can rule that out a priori."

Problem is, you can't. The prima facie conclusion is that people who say they are religiously motivated are religiously motivated. To claim otherwise is obtuse, especially without any further evidence.

The other element in making such a connection is a theological tradition that incites violence which the perpetrator could reference. Wiggles fans might well criticize me for murdering in the name of Barney the Purple Dinosaur, but it would be an unfair accusation if he hadn't really written all those horrible, violent religious screeds.

 

[lightgigantic]

Over a span of several centuries, hundreds of thousands of volunteers left their homes and families, throwing their women and children into severe poverty and distress, and marched across Europe in crusades they called "the Holy War" and "the Just War". They did so directly in response not only to the religious zeal associated with the struggle to liberate "the Holy Land" from the Seljuk Turks, who they branded as "devils" and "enemies of Our Lord", but with the blessings of bishops and priests, who offered countless Masses begging God to protect and preserve His "Holy Warriors", blessing their shields and swords with sacred ash of the censer and the holy sprinkling from the mitre, intoning sacred text and chant to the Lord beseeching His protection, anointing their foreheads with Holy Oil and invoking the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and the patronage of the Saints and warriors who preceded them, that they would reach down from heaven and guide these men to Jerusalem and give them strength to smite the enemy dead, in the most solemn and pious of knighting rituals that could possibly symbolize religious motivation. And when these men left their poor families to the care of the Church, relocating them to the abbeys and convents of their diocese, they did so with the full understanding and belief that their sins in this life were forgiven them, and their families, under the express command of the Apostle of the Lord in Rome, whose written instructions specifically included the reward of plenary indulgences.

It is hard to fathom any other example of religiously motivated violence that spanned so many countries for such a long time and which insinuated itself into the administrative and spiritual offices of its priestly class and under such devotedly loyal support of the sovereigns of the region who all embraced the Christian purpose and its Holy Wars.

The harsh reality of history continues to bruise the tender sensibility of modern religious idealism expressed by the above members. Nevertheless, we are left with tremendous stores of historical treasure in our museums and preserved sites to attest to the profound nature of this paradoxical mix of piety and violence.

The veneration of these sainted warriors by all of the faithful continued long after their exploits, including the construction of elaborate shrines and sanctuaries dedicated to their memory, where, for centuries, solemn prayers were offered to God to assure that these souls had claimed their rightful place at His right hand.

Below is the Vial of the Sacred Blood, delivered to Belgium from Jerusalem after the 12th century victory, around which was constructed the Basilica of the Holy Blood, one of the architectural legacies of this remarkably religiously violent era in western history:

What were they when they were lucrative trade partners (ie before the Turks cut off Jerusalem)?
Less religious?

 

[Aqueous Id]

@Jan Ardena
@wynn
@all other apologists

Consecration of the Brotherhood of the Holy Blood, backdrop to the altar at the Basilica:

The sword in the sanctuary speaks for itself. This is centuries later.

The thirst for blood did not begin or end in Constantinople and Jerusalem:

ON THEIR WAY TO JERUSALEM the crusaders left a path of death and destruction behind in Jewish communities along the Rhine and Danube "because," they are recorded as explaining, "why should we attack the unbelievers in the Holy Land, and leave the infidels in our midst undisturbed?"

On May 25, 1096, about 800 Jews were murdered in Wurms, Germany while many others chose suicide, Kidush haShem, rather than subject their families to torture, rape and murder at the hands of their tormentors. In Regensburg Jews were thrown to their deaths into the Danube, a "baptism" as entertainment for the mob. In Mainz, Cologne, Prague and many other cities, thousands were killed and their possessions plundered. During the nine crusades spanning nearly 200 years tens of thousands of Jews were massacred, their property pillaged.

A French bible illustration of 1250 depicts Jews (identifiable by the Judenhut, the "Jew hat" men were forced to wear to distinguish them from Christians) being massacred by crusaders during the First Crusade, 1096 CE.:
​

citing http://aia-themiddleages.blogspot.com/2008/03/anti-jewish-myths.html

A killing spree in the name of God, permeating every kind of artifact held and used during prayer and meditation under the most solemn ceremonies of religious practice the world has ever seen, motivated by the eternal reward of the plenary indulgence.

It is truly remarkable that above members would attempt to sweep history under the carpet of apologetics, while it so plainly speaks to the truth of religiously motivated violence.

 

[Aqueous Id]

What were they when they were lucrative trade partners (ie before the Turks cut off Jerusalem)?
Less religious?

I don't know - merchants? I think that scarcely accounts for the hundreds of thousands of others - farmers, peasants, craftsmen, etc. - that staunchly believed the sacred mission to which they all dedicated their lives and the happiness of their women and children, and who generally were ignorant of the commercial interests that you attribute to the violence.

You are imposing a modern cynical paradigm of the mundane, to gloss over the reality of medieval religious zeal. To do so is revisionism.

 

[lightgigantic]

@Jan Ardena
@wynn
@all other apologists



It is truly remarkable that above members would attempt to sweep history under the carpet of apologetics, while it so plainly speaks to the truth of religiously motivated violence.

All this has exactly what to do with events 20 years ago that paved the way for conflict?
Or are you trying to say that even if the turks didn't move on Jerusalem and annex the west from it that conflict of the scale would have been inevitable anyway?

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know - merchants? I think that scarcely accounts for the hundreds of thousands of others - farmers, peasants, craftsmen, etc. - that staunchly believed the sacred mission to which they all dedicated their lives and the happiness of their women and children, and who generally were ignorant of the commercial interests that you attribute to the violence.

Did they believe that before the turks cut of Jerusalem?

You are imposing a modern cynical paradigm of the mundane, to gloss over the reality of medieval religious zeal. To do so is revisionism.

what medieval religious zeal was there before the turks cut off Jerusalem?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Did they believe that before the turks cut of Jerusalem?



what medieval religious zeal was there before the turks cut off Jerusalem?

The Holy Land had not yet been breached.

Do you claim that the Christians did not go to rescue their shrines from defilement by the Eastern hordes, with the utmost religious conviction that they were preserving the survival of Christianity itself?

 

[Aqueous Id]

All this has exactly what to do with events 20 years ago that paved the way for conflict?

What are you referring to?

Or are you trying to say that even if the turks didn't move on Jerusalem and annex the west from it that conflict of the scale would have been inevitable anyway?

I am only speaking to what actually happened, from the best evidence available. The wranglings of sultans and princes does not alter the reality of the European population at large, who were in constant support of the violence in the name of God. You are still imposing a revisionist view, that erases this reality.

 

[lightgigantic]

The Holy Land had not yet been breached.

Do you claim that the Christians did not go to rescue their shrines from defilement by the Eastern hordes, with the utmost religious conviction that they were preserving the survival of Christianity itself?

I tend to agree more with this
"High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed ... the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God".

 

[lightgigantic]

What are you referring to?

Events before the first crusade

I am only speaking to what actually happened, from the best evidence available. The wranglings of sultans and princes does not alter the reality of the European population at large, who were in constant support of the violence in the name of God. You are still imposing a revisionist view, that erases this reality.

You are speaking from the beginning of the first crusade. As for clues for what framed it, there are plenty of those around
:shrug:

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

"High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed ... the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God".

To be fair, the bible isn't exactly chalked full of "high ideals". There's like, what, four or five in there in total while the rest of it is either completely inane or absolutely barbaric.

 

[Aqueous Id]

@revisionists, apologists, denialists, and defenders of religious idealism:

No one arguing with you denies the sanctity of religious purpose that seeks peace and forgiveness in the imitation of a noble supernatural being.

What is argued is that the pursuit of these goals has, in times of crisis, driven the faithful to abandon the higher ground, believing that their system of doctrinal values was about to perish. Once this ideation takes root, the faithful take on a persona of last resort, one which sanctions violence during emergencies of war. One persona remains deeply and firmly entrenched in the doctrines of faith while at the same time a dual persona girds the loins and trods off into battle. It is this duality we are speaking of that constitutes religiously motivated violence. Both personas are necessarily present to create the seeming paradox. To claim that a human being is single-threaded, or that the wrapped strands do touch one another, seems to be the central difference between the two camps of debate. These interlaced realms of the mind of medieval man are revealed in the artifacts of history. Some inferences are required to fully appreciate the depth of the psychological phenomenon that was unfolding. Nevertheless, the artifacts do trace a clear path to making the best inferences conceivable.

Consider the massacre of he Jews at Mainz by Crusaders in 1096, who found it pleasing to the Lord to eliminate "those who hanged him" (on the tree):

While the men were being decapitated in the courtyard outside the building where the weak folks hid:

The women there girded their loins with strength and slew their sons and their daughters and then themselves. Many men, too, plucked up courage and killed their wives, their sons, their infants. The tender and delicate mother slaughtered the babe she had played with, all of them, men and women arose and slaughtered one another. The maidens and the young brides and grooms looked out of the Windows and in a loud voice cried: "Look and see, O our God, what w e do for the sanctification of Thy great name in order not to exchange you for a hanged and crucified one...."

-Solomon bar Samson, The Massacre of the Jews at Mainz, ca. 1140.

​

 

[Aqueous Id]

None of that matters if we are inquiring into the mind of the population who engaged in war and the ancillary violence against Jews. This is what I mean by revisionism. It erases the realities of the players in the context of the stage on which they acted.

 

[Bells]

Does the society in which you live not have rules the transgression of which is punishable by law?

Do you personally not have rules the transgression of which you punish in some way?

Of course we do.

But in my society, we also look at the individual's motives to attempt to determine why they committed the crime in the first place.

And if the motive stems from their religious belief 'ie, a priest saying 'I beat her to death to remove the evil spirits from her soul', then it would be a fair and reasonable assumption to describe that motive as being based on his religious beliefs.

But apparently, in Wynn land, there is no such thing as motive and everyone who is religious is good and holy, because religion can only ever promote good things (we'll forget of course the wars waged in God's name and God himself murdering and slaughtering across the countryside as recounted in the Bible)..

a poor fund of knowledge ... much like any other incident of malpractice

The incident can be malpractice as much as you want it to be. It still does not take away from the fact that the priests motivation was based solely on his religious beliefs. Whether you agree with his religious beliefs is irrelevant. What is relevant is the priest's motivation in beating the individual to death while trying to remove the evil spirits from the person's body while praising the powers that be and probably saying 'by the power invested in me by God, etc'..

Of course. And if a religious individual sees you walking down the street and believes you are satan and must be killed and kills you, I am sure your love one's will comfort themselves in saying that it was just like any other "incident of malpractice".

If they have clients other than their gods it should be obvious ....

*Sigh*

Sacrificing people to appease one's god's is religiously motivated violence Lightgigantic.

so what is it?
their own wishes or religious motivation?

Knowingly playing dim is tantamount to trolling.

Cease and desist.

If an individual is motivated by their religious beliefs to do anything, then that is their individual motivation. Be it for something good or bad.

I don't think its possible to adhere to provincial politics and the absolute truth

Good for you.

Reality, however, is not how you believe it to be.

Notice how the author of this article establishes a multiple array of causes and then concludes that religion often leads to irrational violence

Notice how the author comments that one cannot discount religion as an individual motivator, especially when the criminal states themselves that they were motivated by whatever deity they believe in or whatever their religious beliefs happen to be, to commit the crime?

You mean the one that says there is sociology, psychology, culture, and even economics ... but when it becomes religious it suddenly becomes often and irrational?

Really?

I have to ask, do you troll to attempt to get an angry response that you actually deserve? I am curious as to why you are such a serial pest on this forum?

To reiterate, just for you, since you appear to be in a mentally special place:

it would be similarly inappropriate to deny the obvious religious connection.​

it means the religious motivation is a superficial dressing of more telling factors.

Says you?

A criminal admits their motivation is religious and you come out and say 'err no, it is obviously "a superficial dressing of more telling factors"..

There have been numerous quotes and links provided where violent criminals have claimed their motivation was religious. Who are you to tell them that it is obviously not because you apparently have some insider knowledge of all criminal acts that it is "a superficial dressing of more telling factors"? Is there something you are not sharing with the class LG?

it means that without the more telling factors, the conflict cannot take place

So a priest beating a parishioner to death to remove evil spirits from them is motivated by what exactly?

Care to name the more telling factors there?

When a Christian extremist goes out of his way to bomb an abortion clinic or shoot a doctor who performs abortions, what other telling factor is there, even after he clearly states that his motivation is religious?

I have to ask, do you often make excuses for criminals and put words in their mouths to make yourself more comfortable with your personal beliefs?

What motivates you to behave as you do?

What motivates anyone to make excuses for criminals? How selfish are you LG?

as opposed to what?
the occupation of land?

Even prior to the occupation. I mean obviously, the love and adoration between the two religions is strong.

for what?
violence or malpractice?

One could say for both.

Let me know when you will be finished making excuses for criminals to fulfill your own selfish desires to protect your own religious beliefs.

In this case it is localized to individuals under the sway of a particular charismatic leader

And it is still religious...

I am rejecting it because there are more accurate and telling motivational forces at work.

Just like I think your motivation to troll this forum and this thread is based purely on your religious idealogy and your religious desire to protect your own religious beliefs.

the scale helps isolate the proper cause.
For instance if you have two communities of two different religious slants that have not engaged in violence for many hundreds for years and then suddenly it heats up, you can weigh in the scale to help establish what is really at play

Now, in your bag of excuses for criminals, tell me what the proper cause is for a priest/pastor to beat someone to death during an exorcism? What motivates a priest to even perform exorcisms?

And we know that for hundreds of years, there has been religious conflict. Abrahamic religions especially is rife with religious conflict. Unless you wish to deny history as well?

 

[Aqueous Id]

@LG --



To be fair, the bible isn't exactly chalked full of "high ideals". There's like, what, four or five in there in total while the rest of it is either completely inane or absolutely barbaric.

Yes, and the illuminated manuscripts that depicted the slaughter of Jews on the cover were intended to draw from that well of barbaric script.